Attch 3 Past Performance Questionaire.doc
DOC document 67 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 70US0926R70093666
About this file
This is a Past Performance Questionnaire template for evaluating contractor performance on the National Recruitment Advertising Campaign Services (NRAC) contract (Solicitation Number: 70US0926R70093666) with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Secret Service Agency.
The questionnaire is designed to assess past performance as a source selection factor and requires evaluators to rate contractor performance across eight primary performance elements using a four-point scale: Outstanding, Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory, or Other/N/A. The evaluation criteria cover Technical Performance (quality of technical approach and understanding of requirements), Timeliness of Performance (effective resource utilization and schedule adherence), Quality/Customer Satisfaction (commitment to customer satisfaction, business behavior, and communication), and Cost Control (cost planning and budget management). Additionally, evaluators must provide a yes/no response regarding willingness to do business with the contractor again. The completed questionnaire should be submitted via email to John Akin at john.akin@usss.dhs.gov with the subject line referencing the solicitation number and evaluated company name. The form requires documentation of company information, contract details, contracting officer contact information, evaluator identity, and the date the evaluation was provided, with space for supplemental comments addressing any of the rated performance elements.
View the file
Other files
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
SOLICITATION NUMBER: 70US0926R70093666
PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Past Performance Questionnaire
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Secret Service Agency intends to award a contract for National Recruitment Advertising Campaign Services (NRAC). As part of the procurement process, an increased emphasis is being placed on past performance as a source selection factor.
In order to accurately evaluate the offeror’s past performance, your assistance is requested in obtaining and verifying the past performance history of this offeror.
Two forms are provided to complete the evaluation: 1) Performance Rating Form; and 2) Supplemental Comment Form. Upon completion of this form, please submit it as an e-mailed attachment to John Akin at john.akin@usss.dhs.gov. Please make the subject line of the e-mail read “70US0926R70093666 – Past Performance Questionnaire – Insert Evaluated Company’s Name.”
The following standards shall be used in arriving at the rating.
Outstanding Contractor’s performance exceeded customer expectations and was technically acceptable, providing significant features or benefits.
Satisfactory Contractor met customer expectations or contract requirements and demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the requirements.
Unsatisfactory Contractor’s performance was either marginal or did not meet customer expectations or contract requirements.
Other If the element is not applicable, indicate with “N/A.” If no data has been obtained or additional comments are provided, please note in this column.
Performance Rating Form
NAME OF COMPANY EVALUATED:
ADDRESS OF COMPANY EVALUATED:
CONTRACT NUMBER
CONTRACT PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
| CONTRACT VALUE |
| CONTRACT TYPE |
CONTRACTING OFFICER NAME,
ADDRESS, FAX AND TELEPHONE NUMBER, AND EMAIL ADDRESS
TYPE OF SERVICES PERFORMED (ACTIVITY):
| NAME OF EVALUATOR, COMPANY/AGENCY, ADDRESS, FAX AND TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS |
| DATE EVALUATION PROVIDED |
| Performance Element |
| Outstanding |
| Satisfactory |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Other |
Technical Performance (Quality of Product or Service)
1. QUALITY OF TECHNICAL APPROACH
(For example: Were the services comprehensive, complete, and feasible? (Met the needs, performed successfully, and accommodated changing requirements.)
2. UNDERSTANDING OF REQUIREMENTS
(For example: Did the contractor show an understanding of the scope of the requirements and an appreciation of the complexity of the requirements? And did the contractor effectively identify flaws, inconsistencies and other inaccuracies in your technical direction?)
Timeliness of Performance
3. EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES
(For example: Was the contractor able to obtain in a timely manner the amount and type of personnel resources required to support the project, effectively train personnel to perform the work required for the project, and maintain the required workforce throughout the term of the contract?)
4. TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE
(For example: Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic schedules, monitoring performance, completing work on time, and implementing corrections/changes in a timely manner?)
Quality / Customer Satisfaction
5. QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE/CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
(For example: Was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction?)
6. BUSINESS BEHAVIOR
(For example: Was the contractor reasonable and cooperative at the corporate and program levels in response to changes in technical direction, correcting errors, poor performance, criticism/rejection of contract deliverables and other quality issues?)
7. COMMUNICATION
(For example: Did the contractor work and communicate well with contracting officers, contracting officer’s technical representatives, end users, other contractors, subcontractors, and in-house staff?)
Cost Control
8. COST CONTROL
(For example: Was the contractor successful in planning and proposing realistic costs, monitoring performance, operating at or below budget, and implementing corrections/changes in a cost effective manner?)
| FOR #9, PLEASE ANSWER “Yes” or “No”, as appropriate |
| YES |
| NO |
9. Given the choice, would you do business with this contractor again?
Additional Comment Form
Please provide any additional comments regarding your performance element ratings in the space below. Please add additional pages as necessary.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .